FOR years, conventional wisdom has held that as long as Israel faces the external challenge of Arab — especially Palestinian
— hostility it will never come to terms with its internal divisions.
The left has sometimes used it as an argument: we must make peace with
the Palestinians so that we can set our house in order — write a
constitution, figure out the public role of religion. Others have viewed
the threat as almost a silver lining keeping the place together:differences among Israeli Jews (religious or secular, Ashkenazic or
Sephardic) are so profound, the argument goes, thatif the society ever
manages to turn its attention inward, it might tear itself apart.
(...)

(...) The theme of “catastrophic Zionism,” sometimes called “war Zionism,” suggests that Israel — as a state — relies on crisis and the potential of war with its neighbors as a foundation of its very existence.

This has actually been the belief of many hard-line “right wing” elements going back to the earliest days of Israel. In short, there are many Zionists who believe such crisis is vital — fundamental — to Israel’s survival.

And for this reason, the believers in “catastrophic Zionism” will never lend their support to any policy, domestic or international, that could lead to a final solution of the conflict between Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbors.

In actual fact, this notion — thatpeace could be dangerous to the survival of Israel — is a governing concept in the minds of many Israelis and their supporters worldwide. #/////

The current crisis in Egypt recalls a warning put forth by
AMERICAN FREE PRESS more than two years ago. On February 14, 2011, AFP
suggested that Israel benefited from (and was most likely instigating) the
chaos raging as a consequence of the so-called Arab spring tearing apart its
neighbors—including,most particularly, the uprising in Egypt, which led to the
rise of the new government that was just recently toppled by the military. At
the time, critics accused AFP of promulgating outlandish “conspiracy theories.”

However, no less than David Ignatius—the influential veteran
foreign affairs correspondent for The Washington Post—has now confirmed the
critical essence of what AFP reported.

For the record, here is what AFP told its readers more than
two years ago, in reviewing the events in Egypt and describing the little-known
Israeli strategic policy known as “catastrophic Zionism”:

While most rational people would assume Israel would prefer
to have neighboring states that are stable, successful participants in the
region, this is not necessarily the case.

In fact, a carefully crafted “think piece” entitled “A
Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,” featured in the February 1982 edition of the
World Zionist Organization’s Jerusalem-based publication Kivunim: A Journal for
Judaism and Zionism, candidly put forth an Israeli strategy to wreak havoc in
the Arab world, dividing the Arab states from within.

The program—which amounted to “balkanizing” the various Arab
republics, splitting them into religious enclaves in which, for example, Shiite
Muslims or otherwise Sunni Muslims would predominate—was an agenda that Israeli
dissident Israel Shahak said, quite simply, was designed “to make an imperial
Israel into a world power,” by disrupting the Arab states and thereby setting
the stage for Israeli dominance in the Mideast.

The formula was founded on the idea of creating chaos among
Israel’s Arab neighbors, hardly a policy any decent, well-meaning neighbor
could be credited for fostering.

In fact, the current-day political and religious divisions
and devastation in Iraq—the consequence of the American invasion of Iraq
demanded by the pro-Israel lobby in Washington—mirrors precisely what the
Zionist position paper laid forth as the ideal state of affairs for Iraq, from an
Israeli point of view, that is.

But where does Egypt fit into all of this? Reflecting on the
Zionist strategy paper, Ralph Schoenman—an eminent American Jewish critic of
Zionism—writing in 1988 in his book, The Hidden History of Zionism, pointedly
noted the paper’s intent of “double-crossing Mubarak” and emphasized that the
Yinon paper hoped for “the downfall and dissolution of Egypt,” despite the 1979
Camp David peace agreement.

This is geopolitics at its best—or worst—and demonstrates
the kind of gambles Israel has historically been willing to take.

Such gamesmanship by Israel is part of a philosophy known as
“catastrophic Zionism,” a termused almost exclusively by Israeli and Jewish
writers.

The theme of “catastrophic Zionism,” sometimes called “war
Zionism,” suggests that Israel—as a state—relies on crisis and the potential of
war with its neighbors as a foundation of its very existence. This has actually
been the belief of many hard-line “right wing” elements going back to the
earliest days of Israel.

In short, there are many Zionists who believe such crisis is
vital—fundamental—to Israel’s survival.

And for this reason, the believers in “catastrophic Zionism”
will never lend their support to any policy, domestic or international, that
could lead to a final solution of the conflict between Israel and its Arab and
Muslim neighbors.

In actual fact, this notion—that peace could be dangerous to
the survival of Israel—is a governing concept in the minds of many Israelis and
their supporters worldwide.

Hard Assets Alliance

Now Ignatius has underscored AFP’s controversial assertions.
Writing in the Post on April 26, Ignatius described what he called the “upbeat
and introspective mood” in Israel—despite the fact the Middle East is in
turmoil—and explained the reason for this positive worldview:

Israelis are realizing that, however much the upheaval
threatens the established Arab order, it doesn’t necessarily hurt them.
Israelis have been predicting for decades that the arbitrary borders set by the
1916 Sykes-Picot accord would ultimately dissolve and the Ottoman ethnic
“vilayets” (or provinces) would return. Now, to some Israeli analysts, this
Arab crackup seems to be happening, and what’s not to like?

The paradox of the Arab revolutions is that, though they
have created instability on Israel’s borders, they have also reduced the
conventional military threat. Israel’s enemies are tearing each other apart:
Egyptians are squabbling internally as the economy sinks; Syrians are battling
each other in a bloody civil war; Sunni and Shiite extremists are waging a war
of attrition across the region.

On top of this, Ignatius noted, all of this turmoil
positions Israel even more strategically if and when it finally decides to
launch a military strike against Iran.

And although the Post’s foreign policy guru didn’t mention
it, Ignatius has known for at least 30 years of this unusual and little-noted
Israeli agenda for wrecking its neighbors from within.

As far back as December 8, 1982, when Ignatius was a young
staff writer for The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Ignatius wrote an article for
the WSJ describing the Israeli plan for balkanizing the Arab world (referenced
in AFP’s report).

Describing the scheme as “a recipe for chaos,” Ignatius’s
article acknowledged that the Israeli writer Oded Yinon argued that “Israel
should encourage the dissolution of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi
Arabia and the other Persian Gulf nations into a series of weak, ethnic
ministates, noting that Yinon said the Arab world was like “a temporary house
of cards, put together by foreigners (France and Britain in the 1920s),” and
that because of the dissent within those nations, this gave Israel
“far-reaching opportunities” to undermine its Arab neighbors.

Although Ignatius asserted, at the time, that the article
was not politically significant, other than for the outrage that it sparked in
the Arab world, virtually everything theWorld Zionist Organization journal
Kivunim advocated as an Israeli strategy toward the Arab world has since come
to pass.

The fact that Israel—in collaboration with the United
States, Britain and other NATO powers—has played a part in stirring up and
financing the assorted “rebel forces” throughout the Arab world may thus be no
coincidence.

Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and
radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan,
Canada and the U.S.

Sensitive to Republican mistrust of Obama’s foreign policy, Dani Dayantells House leaders that the peace process would harm US interests

Head of the Yesha Council Dani Dayan (photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

JTAIsraeli settler leader Dani Dayan
has made it his mission over the years to warn members of Congress,
particularly Republicans, of the perils of Israeli-Palestinian peace
talks.

Dayan has been a regular visitor
to Washington, his trips often coinciding with developments in the peace
process. During the Annapolis talks in 2007-08, Dayan would watch
Israeli officials as they met with the media in the lobby of the
venerable Mayflower Hotel, just blocks from the White House, and then
move in to offer his own spin.

In June, Dayan met with GOP House
leaders in a meeting organized with help from the Zionist Organization
of America. The meeting was followed by a Washington Jewish Week report
that another settler leader, Gershon Mesika, met with 20 Congress
members just days before the relaunch of peace talks between Israelis
and Palestinians.

The intensive cultivation of relationships on Capitol Hill appears to be bearing fruit.

Within days of talks kicking off
in Washington last week, Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.), a freshman who
attended the June meeting with Dayan, drafted a letter asking the US
attorney general to hinder the release of Palestinian prisoners — a move
approved by Israel to help kick-start negotiations.

Dayan didn’t ask Salmon to write
the letter. That request was made by the Endowment for Middle East
Truth, a conservative lobby funded in part by gaming billionaire Sheldon
Adelson.

But the congressional measures
now being undertaken to impact the trajectory of peace talks have their
roots in the warm relations that settlers and their American friends
have forged in Congress over the past two decades.

“It was important to meet with
the Yesha people,” a GOP official said of the June meeting, using the
Hebrew acronym for the settlers’ council, “to find out who the settlers
are, what they feel obstacles to peace are, what Judea and Samaria means
from a historical perspective.”

In addition to Salmon’s letter, a
perennial effort to tighten a 1995 law requiring the United States to
move its embassy to Jerusalem reappeared just as talks resumed. The
strengthened law would remove a presidential waiver that has enabled
successive presidents to delay the move on the grounds of national
security.

Members of Congress behind both
initiatives deny that the measures — neither in timing nor in substance —
are intended to scuttle the peace talks. On the contrary, the lawmakers
say they are intended to improve the chances of success for the talks
by strengthening Israel’s bargaining position and making American
parameters clear to the Palestinians.

“There will never be clear
sailing as long as there are people who do not recognize Israel as a
Jewish nation,” said Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), one of the sponsors of
the new Jerusalem bill.

But the settler leaders and the right-wing pro-Israel groups that support them are more blunt about their objectives.

“I told the congresspersons that
the strategic choice that John Kerry made to go on with the conventional
peace process to try to renew negotiations … will have catastrophic
consequences for the American national interests,” Dayan said. “Because
when he fails — and he will fail — the fact that the secretary of state
of the United States failed will be noticed very clearly in Tehran and
in Damascus and in Moscow and in Pyongyang.”

Daniel Mandel, the director of
ZOA’s Center for Middle East Policy, said his group was gearing up to
push back against talks it believes are doomed because the Palestinians
remain unwilling to accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.

“Our strategy now that
negotiations have resumed is to unblinkingly focus on the unregenerative
nature of Abbas’ Palestinian Authority,” Mandel said, referring to
Mahmoud Abbas, the P.A. president.

Efforts to exert congressional pressure to affect the outcome of peace talks are not new.

Following the launch of the Oslo
peace process in the early 1990s, right-wing Israelis and their allies
helped pass a congressional bill that would move the American embassy
from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — a move that would buttress Israeli claims
to the city whose ultimate fate was to be determined by Israelis and
Palestinians.

A separate bill sought to prevent
US troops from patrolling the Golan Heights to help cement a peace deal
with Syria. Yitzhak Rabin, then the Israeli prime minister, expressed
his frustration at both moves.

Back then, the right-wingers had
mainstream allies; the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbied
for the Jerusalem law. AIPAC did not respond to requests for comment on
the new Jerusalem bill, which is backed by the ZOA.

Republican House officials say
their members are deeply skeptical about the renewed talks, which were
launched after an intensive round of shuttle diplomacy by Kerry.
Sensitive to Republican mistrust of President Obama’s foreign policy
agenda, Dayan said he attempted to persuade House leaders that the peace
process would harm US interests.

“I would like Congress to explain
to the State Department that this is a morally improper way to conduct
diplomacy,” Dayan in an interview this week.

Sarah Stern, the director of the
Endowment for Middle East Truth, said her primary concern was for the
families of those killed by the released prisoners, but she acknowledged
there was a dividend in alerting Americans to the dangers of the peace
process.

“I can’t petition the Israeli
government as an American citizen, I can only petition our officials,”
Stern said. “But as a sidebar, it’s painful to see Israel has to go
through so much just to get the Palestinians to sit down, and it’s a
very sad thing that Israel has been subject to so much pressure by
Kerry.”

“Modern-day
Israel, and the Jewish community, are strongly influenced by the memory
and horrors of Hitler and the Holocaust. Burg argues that the Jewish nation has been traumatized and has lost the ability to trust itself, its neighbors or the world around it.
He shows that this is one of the causes for the growing nationalism
and violence that are plaguing Israeli society and reverberating through
Jewish communities worldwide. Burg uses his own family history—his
parents were Holocaust survivors—to inform his innovative views on whatthe
Jewish people need to do to move on and eventually live in peace with
their Arab neighbors and feel comfortable in the world at large. (...)”

“This is an important book by a
very courageous man. The shadow of the Shoah and its abusive
application to the contemporary Middle East have been a catastrophe for
Jews, Israelis and Arabs alike. In Burg's view Israel must move beyond
Hitler's poisoned legacy. If they cannot or will not do this, the Middle
East will never see peace and Israel has no future.”

-- Tony Judt,
bestselling author of Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 and Professor at New York University

“An
Israeli-born son of Holocaust survivors, Burg addresses a heartfelt
plea to his countrymen: remember the past, but do not be its slaves;
pathology is neither patriotism nor statescraft. A compelling and
eloquent cri de coeur from a veteran of Israel's wars and politics.”

--
Howard M. Sachar, bestselling author of A History of the Jews in the Modern World and A History of Israel

"Burg
takes a blunt, loving, painful and desperately important look at the
state of the Jewish soul today. Anyone who cares about the future of the
Middle East and the fate of victimized peoples needs to read this book
and think hard."

-- J.J. Goldberg, author of Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment and Editorial Director of The Forward

“This
fascinating and thought-provoking book should be read by every person
who cares about Israel. Burg's central theme is that Israeli leaders use
the memory of the Holocaust in ways that are warping the country's
soul, creating unnecessary fear, and making it impossible to achieve
peace with the Palestinians.”

-- John J. Mearsheimer, bestselling author
of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy and Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago

“An honest reflection of a tormented man searching for the universal values in Judaism.”

-- Le Figaro

“In
this book of memories and reflections, the former Knesset Speaker
delivers his disquieting findings about Israel that 'became a Kingdom
without a prophesy.'... Foremost a book of hope from a man who wants to
find ways to return Judaism to its universal calling.”

--Le Monde

“Short of being Prime Minister, Burg could not be higher in the Zionist establishment.”

David Remnick, The New Yorker

"Mr. Burg...wrote a powerful book, an indictment of how Zionism and the Holocaust have been used."

--Globe and Mail

"[A] compelling mix of polemic, personal memoir, homage to his parents and meditation on Judaism."

--The Independent

"Avraham
Burg has great faith in the creative power of argument. His book has
already provoked much controversy and now that it has been translated is
certain to provoke more. At a time when crass, catchpenny titles pour
from the presses, it is that unusual thing: A new book that matters."

Landau: 1967 lines are 'Auschwitz borders
Tourism Minister Uzi Landau called pre-1967 lines "Auschwitz borders" ahead of Sunday's cabinet meeting.
Landau's
comments, quoting a well-known turn of phrase by former foreign
minister Abba Eban from 1969, came after US Secretary of State John
Kerry visited the region and called for a treaty based on pre-1967 lines
with land swaps.

(...) Lieberman
noted that he has said many times that there is no solution to the
conflict, at least not in the coming years. "What is possible and
important to do is to manage the conflict," he wrote.

He said that
Israel must not agree that the negotiations be conducted on the basis of
the pre-1967 borders, reminding that the late former Minister Abba Eban
“called them Auschwitz borders" due to the fact that they would
guarantee Israel’s destruction. In addition, said Lieberman, it is
important to make clear to the PA that "there will be no construction
freeze. Not in Jerusalem and not in the Jewish communities in Judea and
Samaria."

The meeting with Tourism Minister Uzi Landau took place a day after he publicly quoted the well-known maxim of former Foreign Minister Abba Eban, "The '67 borders remind us of the borders of Auschwitz."
These words were uttered by Landau at the beginning of a government
meeting that took place on Sunday (May 26) and were widely quoted in the
news broadcasts. (...)Isn't the Holocaust comparison
somewhat exaggerated? After all, the president proclaims the vision of
two states, and allows us to understand that he and the prime minister
are in agreement … (...) Former Foreign Minister Abba Eban used that expression in 1969. Dozens of years have passed since then …
"That doesn't make these borders less
Auschwitz-like. Before '67, they didn't have Katyusha rockets and
missiles to the extent owned today by Hezbollah in the north and Hamas
in the south that constitute a strategic threat to Israel. One thing
must be clear: A Palestinian state is not the solution."

Given this state of affairs, one can certainly fathom the distrust that
Israelis have in their surroundings. Their fear of a second attempt to
exterminate them is certainly understandable, as is the term “Auschwitz
borders,” coined by legendary Foreign Minister Abba Eban [1966–1974] in
reference to a return to the 1967 borders. A nation which experienced
that less than a hundred years ago will have a hard time shutting
themselves up in a country that is just nine miles wide, especially
given the fact that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims stirring
behind those borders, and that some of those Muslims refer to the Jews
as “the descendants of apes and pigs,” call openly for jihad and refuse
to come to terms with the existence of a Jewish entity in the historic
land of Israel.

4,202 words
A colorful yet enigmatic figure in the postwar American racialist
movement was the well-to-do anti-Jewish businessman DeWest “West” Hooker
(1918–1999). His portrait emerges primarily through self-descriptions
he provided to leading white activists (the most notable of whom was
George Lincoln Rockwell) over a period of forty years. Read more …

Lawrence
Dennis (December 25, 1893–August 20, 1977) was one of America’s most
original Right-wing critics of liberalism, capitalism, imperialism, and
the Cold War. Interestingly enough, he was part black, a fact that was
known to his many Right-wing admirers. In commemoration of Dennis’
birthday, and as a Christmas gift to our readers, we are reprinting
Keith Stimely’s excellent introduction to his life and ideas. Read more …

Chapter Four

No Love Lost:

JFK, Meyer Lansky,

the Mafia and the Israeli Lobby

There was a long history of bitter enmity between John F. Kennedy and his powerful father Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy and organized crime boss Meyer Lansky, stemming in part from the senior Kennedy's deals with the underworld. This, however, did not stop the Kennedy family from cutting deals with the crime syndicate when it came to winning elections. The Kennedy family's alleged anti-Semitism didn't do anything to improve JFK's relations with Israel and its American lobby either. Kennedy's intervention in the issue of Algerian independence from France also drew sharp criticism from the Israeli lobby as well. Yet, when John F. Kennedy sought the presidency, he was willing to cut deals with the Israeli lobby—for a price. By the end of his presidency, however, Kennedy had reneged on his deals, not only with Israel's Godfather, Meyer Lansky, and his henchmen in the Mafia, but also with the Israeli lobby.

John F. Kennedy was very much a product
of his father's upbringing— much to the dismay, it might be said, of
many of even JFK's most devout disciples. They would, frankly, prefer to
forget much of the recorded history of the Kennedy family and present
JFK as something just short of being a saint. That President John
F. Kennedy was the son of Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy long perceived to
be, at the very least, neutral to the ambitions of Nazi Germany—and, at
the worst, an anti-Semite and even an admirer of Adolf Hitler—has been a
lot for Kennedy's admirers to swallow. Ambassador Kennedy, of
course, fought U.S. entry into World War II. Several accounts of the
period suggest that Kennedy himself returned from Britain, where he
served as American ambassador, with the intent of launching a major
campaign against President Roosevelt's war plans. However, after a
meeting at the White House between the ambassador and the president,
Kennedy backed off. What happened during that meeting is ripe for
speculation.

JFK, HITLER AND THE WAR IN EUROPE

What is
interesting to note (and definitely little known) is that at the same
time Ambassador Kennedy was fighting against American involvement in
what became the Second World War, his sons Joe, Jr. and John were also
promoting the same agenda. Joe, Jr., as a student at Harvard,
served on the Harvard Committee Against Military Intervention in Europe,
described as "a reactionary group that petitioned influential
government officials and held rallies opposing American entry in the
European war effort."(37) More significantly, however, it appears
that JFK himself was under steady surveillance by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI
because of his anti-war activities. JFK was accused by the FBI of
voicing "anti-British and defeatist sentiments and blaming Winston
Churchill for getting the United States into the war . . . It also
appears," charged the FBI, "that Kennedy had prepared for his father at
least one of the speeches which his father had made, or was intending to
make, in answer to criticism of his alleged appeasement policies . . .
In addition Jack Kennedy stated that in his opinion England was through,
and his father's greatest mistake was not talking enough, that he
stopped talking too soon."(38) Young Jack Kennedy, as a Harvard
student, was more than neutral toward Hitler, it seems. Having visited
Mussolini's Italy, Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany, JFK recorded in
his diary, according toTime magazine, that he had come "to the decision
that Facism [sic] is the thing for Germany and Italy, Communism for
Russia and Democracy for America and England."(39) Youthful musings, but
interesting, to say the least.

KENNEDY AND THE 'FASCIST'

After the war was underway, JFK's father, Ambassador Kennedy, actively
considered involvement in a scheme to cut the war short—in opposition to
President Roosevelt. Kennedy's biographer, Richard Whalen, has
written of a secret meeting between Kennedy and a prominent critic of
the Roosevelt administration, the controversial publicist, Lawrence
Dennis. Often described (inaccurately) as "America's leading fascist,"
Dennis was a former diplomat himself and one of the early leaders in the
effort to block American intervention in what evolved into World War
II. Consequently, he and Kennedy had much in common. Kennedy's
biographer outlined the circumstances of that secret meeting—a meeting
which says much about Kennedy's line of thinking: "In October 1943,
Lawrence Dennis received a telephone call from his friend, Paul Palmer,
then a senior editor ofThe Reader's Digest. Before the war, Dennis had
contributed to theDigest, but the author of The Coming American
Fascism since had become too controversial for his byline to appear in
the nation's largest magazine. Now he received a $500-a-month retainer
as an editorial consultant. "One of his recent efforts had been a
memorandum sharply critical of unconditional surrender and the rumored
plans to break up Germany. Palmer invited Dennis to lunch in his suite
in Manhattan's St. Regis Hotel, saying he would meet someone there who
was thinking along similar lines. "It turned out to be Joe Kennedy.
Over lunch, Kennedy said he had been seeing Archbishop Spellman almost
daily. He said the Archbishop had returned from Rome with word that
Hitler's generals might attempt to overthrow him if they were offered
terms less hopeless than unconditional surrender. "Kennedy grew
emotional and castigated Roosevelt. He talked of his two sons in the
service, and declared that the war could be ended within two weeks if
the German generals were given encouragement. "Of course, no Church
official could speak out against the folly of Roosevelt's policy, but
Kennedy could, and this had been Palmer's purpose in arranging the
luncheon. The editor asked whether the former Ambassador would write, or
at least sign, an article condemning unconditional surrender. The
impact of such an article, given Kennedy's former standing in the
administration, could be enormous. But he did not accept the invitation
and the war being fought by his sons and so many other young men raged
on.”(40) Ambassador Kennedy no doubt remembered this meeting for
the rest of his days. He was very bitter about the war and particularly
bitter at Franklin D. Roosevelt. Kennedy once allegedly referred to
FDR as "that crippled son of a bitch that killed my son Joe." (Joe
Kennedy, Jr., of course, being the ambassador's eldest son. It was Joe,
Jr.'s death that ultimately laid the groundwork for the second son,
John, to be groomed for the presidency in his older brother's place.)

A BUSINESS VENTURE

However, the senior Kennedy's views most definitely did not change as
time went by. But as the retired ambassador grew older, he became more
pragmatic. This was evidenced in a meeting—in the mid-1950's—between
Kennedy and an associate of Lawrence Dennis—a New York-based
entertainment executive named DeWest Hooker. In fact, as we shall
see, it may have been efforts by Hooker, as a consequence of his meeting
with Joe Kennedy, that helped John F. Kennedy win his narrow victory in
the 1960 presidential election. Mr. Hooker hoped to interest Joe
Kennedy in a business venture which Hooker believed might be right up
the ambassador's alley. Hooker wanted to establish an independent
television network, and he felt that Kennedy, himself a veteran movie
mogul, might be interested in backing the enterprise. Hooker's memory of
that meeting is quite interesting, particularly in the context of the
thesis presented in these pages. To appreciate just precisely where
Hooker was coming from, however, it is appropriate to review Hooker's
remarkable background.

UNABASHEDLY ANTI-JEWISH

Born to
wealth and privilege and a descendent of one of the signers of the
Declaration of Independence, Hooker had a varied career. Not only did he
act on the Broadway stage, but he also modeled in cigarette
advertisements. Hooker also served for a period as a talent agent with
the powerful firm MCA and was, at a time during the 1950's one of the
highest-paid talent agents in America. Hooker also dabbled in television
production and was equally successful. However, there was an
aspect to Hooker's persona that made him, to say the least,persona non
grata in the entertainment industry: Hooker is unabashedly and frankly
anti-Jewish. He will be the first to admit it, no questions asked. A
powerfully-built man, Hooker is fearless and not afraid to make his
position known. One of Hooker's protégés was George Lincoln
Rockwell, founder of the American Nazi Party. In his memoirs,This Time
the World, Rockwell credits Hooker as being a major influence on his
thinking. In fact, Rockwell dedicated the book to Hooker, along with
several others including Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy and General Douglas
MacArthur. Hooker, Rockwell declared, was the one "who taught me to know
the cunning and evil ways of the enemy."(41) According to Rockwell,
Hooker was "the nearest thing to a Nazi since the Bund."(42) The
reason for Hooker's interest in establishing an independent network was
highly political: Hooker wanted the new network to be totally divorced
from Jewish money and influence. In his judgment, the three existing
networks were entirely under the control of Jewish interests. Hooker
wanted a network that presented what he called "our way of thinking."

JOE KENNEDY SPEAKS FRANKLY

It was in 1956 that Hooker had a private meeting in Palm Beach, Florida
with Kennedy. After a game of golf, Kennedy and Hooker got down to
business. Hooker was there to solicit Kennedy's financial, political and
personal backing for his proposed network. (It was during this
period that Sen. John F. Kennedy was then actively seeking the
Democratic Party's vice presidential nomination. He lost, but his
efforts brought him widespread acclaim within party ranks, and set in
place the mechanism for his successful bid for the top spot on the
party's national ticket in 1960.) After Hooker made his presentation to
the retired ambassador, Kennedy's response was supportive in spirit,
but Old Joe made his final position clear during their four-hour
conference. According to Hooker, "Joe admitted that when he was
ambassador to England that he had been pro-Hitler. However, in Kennedy's
words, 'we' lost the war. By 'we' he didn't mean the United States.
When Kennedy said `we,' he meant the non-Jews. Joe Kennedy believed that
it was the Jews who had won World War II. "Kennedy said, 'I've
done everything I can to fight the Jewish power over this country. I
tried to stop World War II, but I failed. I've made all the money I need
and now I'm passing everything I've learned on to my sons." “I don't go
with the 'loser'," Kennedy told me. 'I've joined the `winners.' I'm
going to work with the Jews. I'm teaching my boys the whole score and
they're going to work with the Jews. I'm going to make Jack the first
Irish Catholic President of the United States and if it means working
with the Jews, so be it. I'm in sympathy with what you're doing,
Hooker'," Kennedy said, 'but I'm not going to do anything that will ruin
Jack's chances to become president."'(43) Hooker was, of course,
disappointed by Kennedy's response and ultimately his "fourth" network
failed to get off the ground. However, Hooker at least had the
satisfaction of knowing that he and the Kennedy family were on the same
wavelength—even if they were willing to compromise those views for
political gain.

THE NAZIS 'ENDORSE' NIXON

As they parted
at the end of their Palm Beach meeting, Hooker asked Kennedy if there
was anything he could do to help the Kennedy family. "Yes, as a matter
of fact, there is something you can do." responded Joe Kennedy. "I'd
like you to use your contacts in the right-wing. Have them start
publishing articles accusing Jack of being controlled by the Jews, of
being a Jewish puppet. This will have the effect of neutralizing Jewish
opposition to Jack (because of me). "The Jews know my views and
naturally they'll assume that Jack is a chip off the old block. If the
right wing starts hitting Jack this will give the Jews second
thoughts—at least the ones who do the voting."(44) Hooker promised
Kennedy he would do what he could. And being a man of his word, Hooker
did influence his right-wing contacts as Kennedy had asked. Hooker
encouraged his friend, Nazi leader Rockwell, and other "right wingers"
to smear John F. Kennedy as JFK's father had suggested. His efforts
succeed. As one chronicle of the 1960 campaign noted: "The American
Nazi Party helped too by throwing its support to Richard Nixon—"Nazis
for Nixon, Kikes for Kennedy" was one of its slogans. Another of its
placards read, "FDR and JFK mean JEW deal."(45) This, of course,
was inspired by JFK's father and carried out through the good offices of
DeWest Hooker and his friend George Lincoln Rockwell, although the
historian who penned the description of Rockwell's sloganeering probably
had no idea that it was indirectly the work of Joe Kennedy. "Frankly,"
Hooker says to this day, "As far as I'm concerned, it was my work that
got Johnny Kennedy in the White House."(46) (Hooker's claim is not
completely off the mark, inasmuch as American Jewish leaders claimed
themselves at the time that it was Jewish support for John F. Kennedy
that gave him his narrow victory over Nixon in the 1960 election.)
This interesting—and revealing—episode is not likely to be memorialized
at the John F. Kennedy Library at Harvard or in any friendly biographies
of the Kennedy family. However, there can be little doubt that Israel
and its American lobby had a fairly good idea of what was going on
behind the scenes.

HNN - Joseph Kennedy and the Jewsby Edward Renehan, Jr. Mr. Renehan's most recent book is The Kennedys at War, 1937-1945, published in April 2002 by Doubleday.
Arriving
at London in early 1938, newly-appointed U.S. Ambassador Joseph P.
Kennedy took up quickly with another transplanted American. Viscountess
Nancy Witcher Langhorne Astor assured Kennedy early in their friendship
that he should not be put off by her pronounced and proud
anti-Catholicism.
"I'm glad you are smart enough not to take my
[views] personally," she wrote. Astor pointed out that she had a number
of Roman Catholic friends - G.K. Chesterton among them - with whom she
shared, if nothing else, a profound hatred for the Jewish race. Joe
Kennedy, in turn, had always detested Jews generally, although he
claimed several as friends individually. Indeed, Kennedy seems to have
tolerated the occasional Jew in the same way Astor tolerated the
occasional Catholic.
As fiercely anti-Communist as they were
anti-Semitic, Kennedy and Astor looked upon Adolf Hitler as a welcome
solution to both of these "world problems" (Nancy's phrase). No member
of the so-called "Cliveden Set" (the informal cabal of appeasers who met
frequently at Nancy Astor's palatial home) seemed much concerned with
the dilemma faced by Jews under the Reich. Astor wrote Kennedy that
Hitler would have to do more than just "give a rough time" to "the
killers of Christ" before she'd be in favor of launching "Armageddon to
save them. The wheel of history swings round as the Lord would have it.
Who are we to stand in the way of the future?" Kennedy replied that he
expected the "Jew media" in the United States to become a problem, that
"Jewish pundits in New York and Los Angeles" were already making noises
contrived to "set a match to the fuse of the world."
During May of
1938, Kennedy engaged in extensive discussions with the new German
Ambassador to the Court of St. James's, Herbert von Dirksen. In the
midst of these conversations (held without approval from the U.S. State
Department), Kennedy advised von Dirksen that President Roosevelt was
the victim of "Jewish influence" and was poorly informed as to the
philosophy, ambitions and ideals of Hitler's regime. (The Nazi
ambassador subsequently told his bosses that Kennedy was "Germany's best
friend" in London.)
Columnists back in the states condemned
Kennedy's fraternizing. Kennedy later claimed that 75% of the attacks
made on him during his Ambassadorship emanated from "a number of Jewish
publishers and writers. ... Some of them in their zeal did not hesitate
to resort to slander and falsehood to achieve their aims." He told his
eldest son, Joe Jr., that he disliked having to put up with "Jewish
columnists" who criticized him with no good reason.
Like his
father, Joe Jr. admired Adolf Hitler. Young Joe had come away impressed
by Nazi rhetoric after traveling in Germany as a student in 1934.
Writing at the time, Joe applauded Hitler's insight in realizing the
German people's "need of a common enemy, someone of whom to make the
goat. Someone, by whose riddance the Germans would feel they had cast
out the cause of their predicament. It was excellent psychology, and it
was too bad that it had to be done to the Jews. The dislike of the
Jews, however, was well-founded. They were at the heads of all big
business, in law etc. It is all to their credit for them to get so far,
but their methods had been quite unscrupulous ... the lawyers and
prominent judges were Jews, and if you had a case against a Jew, you
were nearly always sure to lose it. ... As far as the brutality is
concerned, it must have been necessary to use some ...."
Brutality
was in the eye of the beholder. Writing to Charles Lindbergh shortly
after Kristallnacht in November of 1938, Joe Kennedy Sr. seemed more
concerned about the political ramifications stemming from high-profile,
riotous anti-Semitism than he was about the actual violence done to the
Jews. "... Isn't there some way," he asked, "to persuade [the Nazis] it
is on a situation like this that the whole program of saving western
civilization might hinge? It is more and more difficult for those
seeking peaceful solutions to advocate any plan when the papers are
filled with such horror." Clearly, Kennedy's chief concern about
Kristallnacht was that it might serve to harden anti-fascist sentiment
at home in the United States.
Like his friend Charles Coughlin (an
anti-Semitic broadcaster and Roman Catholic priest), Kennedy always
remained convinced of what he believed to be the Jews' corrupt,
malignant, and profound influence in American culture and politics. "The
Democratic [party] policy of the United States is a Jewish production,"
Kennedy told a British reporter near the end of 1939, adding
confidently that Roosevelt would "fall" in 1940.
But it wasn't
Roosevelt who fell. Kennedy resigned his ambassadorship just weeks after
FDR's overwhelming triumph at the polls. He then retreated to his home
in Florida: a bitter, resentful man nurturing religious and racial
bigotries that put him out-of-step with his country, and out-of-touch
with history.

Shocking Revelations Emerge in New Book• Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941

By Michael Collins Piper

Until
a few years ago, most patriots fondly recalled aviator Charles
Lindbergh for his leadership of the America First movement that fought to
prevent Franklin D. Roosevelt from steering the United States into war
against Adolf Hitler’s Germany.

However, in recent times, pernicious Internet agitprop has convinced
many patriots that heroes like Lindbergh and his “isolationist”
colleagues were actually traitors doing the work of the New World Order.

One broadcaster in particular promotes this nonsense by constantly
harping about “the Nazis,” hyping writers who smear Lindbergh and claim
Hitler’s heirs are today plotting the “rise of the Fourth Reich.”

Those conned by this garbage fail to see this is really a ploy to keep
the image of “the Holocaust” alive, thereby advancing the interests of
Israel, which benefits from the Holocaust in multiple ways, without ever
mentioning the word “Israel” even once. And that’s propaganda at its
most deceptive and calculating.

Even more
disturbing is that—as a consequence of this skewed version of history
taking a grip on the minds of so many—a remarkable number of today’s
patriots have no idea that roughly 90 percent of the American people
agreed with Lindbergh: A war against Hitler was a war America should not
fight.

The history of that period has been savagely distorted and those who should know don’t have a clue as to what really happened.

Ironically, however, coming out of an elite publishing giant, Random
House, is a new book presenting a fascinating look at the efforts by
Lindbergh to stop the push to embroil America in that unnecessary war:
Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh and America’s Fight Over World
War II, 1939-1941.*

The flagrantly pro-British author, Lynne Olson, clearly holds
Lindbergh’s traditional American nationalism in contempt, which explains
why former secretary of state Madeleine Albright—who famously said the
price of 500,000 dead Iraqi children was “worth it”—hails Olson as “our
era’s foremost chronicler of World War II politics and diplomacy.”

Still, though soiled by its pro-New World Order slant, this is a book
patriots need to read. Many books from establishment sources contain a
lot of valuable facts. This is one such volume. Here are just a few of
the author’s amazing admissions:

• Solid data proving that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and its
Wall Street backers did not support Hitler, but vehemently opposed him.

• British intelligence set up shop at Rockefeller Center in Manhattan and
collaborated with the pro-war Fight for Freedom—mostly “upper class
East Coast Protestants”—and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai
B’rith, the Jewish espionage agency. All worked closely with FBI
Director J. Edgar Hoover who was tapping the phones of those who opposed
to the drive for war that Lindbergh said was the work of “the British,
the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.”

• The amazing story of how many high-ranking military officers “fiercely
opposed” FDR’s efforts to arm Britain. Opposing aid to the British was
no less than Gen. George C. Marshall whom the author says is now
“regarded as the country’s greatest military figure in WWII.”

•While Americans today believe Britain was always seen as a grand ally,
the author reveals that, after World War I, “many Americans came to
believe that their country had entered the war not because its own
national interests demanded such action, but because it had been tricked
by the scheming, duplicitous British.”

• FDR utilized warmongering rhetoric of exactly the type today coming
from essentially the same sources, including advocacy of the kind of
police-state measures such as the Patriot Act and the concept of
“homeland security,” which patriots have become convinced was a “Nazi”
invention. Substitute’s today’s Muslim-bashing for German-bashing and it
is history repeating itself.

Declaring any criticism of his policies as detrimental to national
security, FDR spoke of “clever schemes of foreign agents” on American
soil. However, the author admits: “The United States never faced any
serious threat of internal subversion before or during the war. But the
American people never knew that; in fact, they were told the opposite.”

• And, despite Pearl Harbor, most Americans still didn’t see the need
for war against Hitler. The author admits, “the odds are high that
Congress and the American people would have pressured the president to
turn away from an undeclared war against Germany . . . and focus instead
on defeating Japan.” Today, most Americans think Pearl Harbor sparked a
nationwide cry of “Defeat the Nazi Beast.” It never happened.

——

Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show
host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada
and the U.S. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The
High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House,
The New Babylon, Share the Wealth, The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant
and The Golem.The Book’s Publisher Says

Those Angry Days is the definitive account of the debate over American
intervention in World War II—a bitter, sometimes violent clash of
personalities and ideas that divided the nation and ultimately
determined the fate of the free world.

At the center of this controversy stood the two most famous men in
America: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who championed the
interventionist cause, and aviator Charles Lindbergh, who as unofficial
leader and spokesman for America’s isolationists emerged as the
president’s most formidable adversary. Their contest of wills
personified the divisions within the country at large, and author Lynne
Olson makes masterly use of their dramatic personal stories to create a
poignant and riveting narrative.

While FDR, buffeted by political pressures on all sides, struggled to
marshal public support for aid to Winston Churchill’s Britain, Lindbergh
saw his heroic reputation besmirched by allegations that he was a Nazi.

Spanning the years 1939 to 1941, Those Angry Days vividly recreates the
rancorous internal squabbles that gripped the United States in the
period leading up to Pearl Harbor. After Germany vanquished most of
Europe, America found itself torn between its traditional isolationism
and the need to come to the aid of Britain, the only country still
battling Hitler. The conflict over intervention was, as FDR noted, “a
dirty fight,” rife with chicanery and intrigue, and Those Angry Days
recounts every bruising detail.

Plutocracy Thrives on War• Your fellow Americans need the truth found in AMERICAN FREE PRESSBy Willis A. CartoAnd
now the geniuses who run our foreign policy tell us that we must have
troops in Afghanistan until 2024. After all, don’t we have to bring
“democracy” to these mountaineers who like their country just the way
it’s been for many centuries?Afghanistan has never started any war
with the United States. The Afghans just want to be left alone. But we
can’t have that, now, can we?The Afghans raise a lot of poppies.
It’s a pretty flower. The fact that opium is made from poppies wouldn’t
have anything to do with our foreign policy, would it? Or can it be that
this profitable fact has something to do with our foreign policy? You
wouldn’t suppose that some of the patriotic gents who run our foreign
policy have their filthy hands in the till, would you?This
relatively minor situation can hardly be compared with our intervention
into the European war that became World War I by our stupid
intervention.We lost 116,708 American men in that needless
adventure, not tomention spending some $32 billion. The interest on that
debt is accumulating and is now perhaps in the hundreds of billions of
dollars, but who’s counting?And then there was the European war that
started when Winston Churchill declared war on a Germany that tried
everything to avoid such a calamity. Franklin Roosevelt told us that we
had to stop that madman, Adolf Hitler, before he conquered the world
although that was not Hitler’s plan at all—all he wanted was to stop the
communist aggressor, Josef Stalin. He even sent his deputy, Rudolf
Hess, to Britain with a written peace offer for Churchill. But Hess was
locked up and held in solitary confinement by Churchill for the rest of
his life for having the boldness to try to stop the war. For Roosevelt,
this was the golden opportunity he needed to get a third and even a
fourth term. A good war has many advantages for criminal politicians.Why can’t Americans realize that the political establishment feeds on war and rumors of war?The
war industry is extremely profitable for the makers of tanks,
warplanes, battleships, uniforms, etc. They never have to worry about
payment for their paraphernalia for war; the government always pays with
your tax money or more national debt. And the latter has the advantage
of bearing interest that the bankers and bondholders love.Can the
American people wake up and stop acting like children? Why doesn’t the
rest of the media say what AMERICAN FREE PRESS does?Since the rest
of the media can’t be trusted to tell the American people what they need
to know, the people’s only alternative is AFP. For that reason alone
AFP should have at least a million subscribers.So why doesn’t AFP have a million subscribers?I am not sure, but let’s do something about it right now. . . .On
page 8 of this issue is a coupon offering 16 weeks of AFP to a friend
for just $15. All you have to do is fill out the form, enclose $15 and
send the form along with the address of the gift recipient to AFP. I
will personally match every subscription that comes in from this coupon
out of my own pocket. If every subscriber would do that, we could double
our numbers overnight, and I’ll be happily applying for a loan at the
bank. ——Willis A. Carto is a longtime national editor and
publisher. In 1955, Carto founded LIBERTY LOBBY, the first all-American,
pro-middle class lobby group. In 1975 he launched The Spotlight
newspaper which at one time had 375,000 subscribers. Currently he is the
editor and publisher of THE BARNES REVIEW Revisionist history magazine.
For a free sample issue and brochure, please contact TBR, P.O. Box
15877, Washington, D.C. 20003. Anyone who wants a free copy of Carto’s
booklet A Straight Look at the SecondWorldWar need only send $1 to the
above address. TBR also has a website carrying books that relate to the
subjects covered above. These include Smedley Butler’s War Is a Racket,
Joachim Hoffman’s Stalin’s War of Extermination, Victor Suvorov’s The
Chief Culprit, David Irving’s Churchill’s War, Abdallah Melaouhi’s
Rudolf Hess: His Betrayal and Murder and PerpetualWar for Perpetual
Peace, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes. See more at www.barnesreview.com.

http://www.amfirstbooks.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=16Nationalism: The Wave of the Future —
The Prime Target of the Global Forces
of Zionism and Internationalism

. . .THE JUDAS GOATS —
THE ENEMY WITHIN examines the manner in which internationalist
forces have worked to take over and/or destroy legitimate, genuine,
traditional nationalist movements in the United States during the
20th century. As such, it seems appropriate to begin our journey
into this shadowy netherworld of spies and subversion by first defining
precisely what constitutes “nationalism” in the American
sense.. . .Nationalism — in its various
incarnations throughout history and all across the globe —
has always been and certainly always will be a preeminent factor
in dictating the course of mankind’s direction. Nationalism
and the counter-force of internationalism together form the axis
around which the events of our world today revolve. There is hardly
any conflict anywhere on the face of the planet that does not hinge
upon the struggle between nationalism and internationalism. So what
then is nationalism?. . .In America alone, the word nationalism
means many different things to many different people — including
those who consider themselves to be nationalists or rank themselves
as part of “the nationalist movement.”. . .The “nationalist movement”
in America has always been quite internally quarrelsome, at times
so philosophically disjointed that it almost seems a double misnomer
to dare describe the phenomenon as either “nationalist”
or as a “movement” at all.. . .There are many (albeit naïve)
classic “rock-ribbed Republicans” who would call themselves
nationalists — however inappropriately — revering the
“Big Stick” philosophy of Theodore Roosevelt, reveling
in the idea that Uncle Sam should make his presence and his considerable
military might felt ‘round the globe — America right
or wrong. This, to these folks, is “nationalism”—
but, of course, it isn’t, although the modern-day “neo-conservatives”
who relish the thought of using America to advance the worldwide
Zionist agenda have been quite ready to exploit “TR”
as almost one of their own.. . .In marked contrast to these “neo-conservatives,”
there are many other Americans — who truly are nationalists
in the classic sense of the word — who question the very idea
that the United States should act as a world policeman, putting
out brushfire wars and advancing some undefined dream of “democracy,”
which has now become the rallying cry of the neo-conservative (that
is, Zionist-Trotskyite) schemers.

. . .In fact, the genuine American
nationalists, as opposed to the “neocons” (who truly
are “cons” in every sense of that word), are the modern-day
heirs of a traditional American (and, ironically, largely Republican
Party-based) philosophy heralded by the late Sen. Arthur Vandenberg
(R-Mich.) when he affirmed: “Nationalism — not internationalism
— is the indispensable bulwark of American independence.”. . .In his now long-forgotten, but
still quite timely, volume, The Trail of a Tradition
(G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1926), Vandenberg sought to
define the American nationalist tradition in the context of U.S.
engagement with the world at large — from the days of our
Founding Fathers through the era of Woodrow Wilson and the attempt
to enforce a world regime through the engine of the failed League
of Nations.. . .In the end, of course, Vandenberg
himself underwent a remarkable transformation — thanks largely,
it appears, to having been blackmailed and otherwise “influenced”
by British intelligence operatives — and shifted into the
internationalist camp — acting as an outspoken advocate of
free-wheeling U.S. involvement in global affairs. However, in his
early years,Vandenberg was indeed very much a part of what we might
rightly call the genuine “nationalist” camp —
one that occupied quite a large bit of territory in the land of
American political thought.. . .Another area where self-described
“nationalists” seem to part company is on the ever-important
issue of trade. There, the conflict between real nationalism and
the internationalist, imperial perversion of “nationalism”
is critical to the debate. Free trade versus protectionism (as advocated
by traditional nationalists) presents a very real dilemma for self-styled
“conservatives” within Republican Party ranks, for example,
who, on the one hand, consider themselves “nationalists”
and say they are for America First, but who — on the altar
of free trade — are actually working to sacrifice American
sovereignty to multinational trade organizations and global financial
conglomerates. So there is a very basic divergence between free
trade and national sovereignty.. . .The fact is that free trade has
historical ties not only to British imperialism and global super-capitalism,
but also even with the great bugaboo of American conservatives:
communism itself. In 1848, Karl Marx, the father of communism, advocated
free trade because, he said, “it breaks up old nationalities
and carries antagonisms of proletariat [workers] and bourgeoisie
[small businessmen] to the uttermost point.”. . .According to Marx, “the
free trade system hastens the social revolution.” In short,
modern day conservatives who support free trade are actually supporting
a central tenet of Marxism. So, are these “conservatives”
truly “nationalist” in the classic sense? It seems not.. . .Which brings us to the definition
of nationalism . . .

. . .The word “nationalism”
— and the general knowledge of the history surrounding the
concept of nationalism — raises negative images in the minds
of those people — largely educated people, largely politicized
people — who bother to think about the subject.. . .For the average student (at either
the high school or college level) who devotes little of his academic
energies toward the realms of history or political science —
the quite sensible would-be rocket scientist, architect or accountant
who has no desire to dabble in political endeavor — the word
“nationalism” may even conjure up the absolute, all-encompassing
definition of evil as perceived by today’s society and culture
and repeated endlessly in the mass media:

. . .NATIONALISM:
Adolf Hitler, the Third Reich, German militarism, concentration
camps, six million innocent Jews — maybe as many as seven
or eight million, possibly eleven million — marched off
to the gas chambers, later to be incinerated in gas ovens. And
don’t forget Japanese kamikaze fighter pilots — and
Tojo, too... .

Taken right
from the comics or a Hollywood drama, that in essence, sums up the
common-place perception — indeed, really, the more or less
“official” definition — of what constitutes “nationalism.”. . .And this is no accident. The writing
of both popular and academic history and the authority and power
to define what “nationalism” was co-opted and has since
been dominated — at least throughout the second half of the
20th century, and in the Anglo-American world, in particular —
by persons and institutions distinctly hostile to nationalism in
all its varieties and forms.. . .This is a direct consequence of
the growing concentration of media ownership in the hands of an
elite few — closely connected families and financial groups
— who benefit from internationalist policies. This is no “conspiracy
theory,” by any means. Prominent media critic Professor Ben
Bagdikian, in his book The Media Monopoly,
summarizes the situation well:

. . .The [media]
lords of the global village have their own political agenda. All
resist economic changes that do not support their own financial
interests. Together, they exert a homogenizing power over ideas,
culture and commerce that affects populations larger than any
in history. Neither Caesar nor Hitler, Franklin Roosevelt nor
any Pope, has commanded as much power to shape the information
on which so many people depend to make decisions about everything
from whom to vote for to what to eat . .

. . .Monopolistic power dominates many other industries and most
of them enjoy special treatment by the government. But media giants
have two enormous advantages: They control the public image of
national leaders who, as a result, fear and favor the media magnates’
political agendas; and they control the information and entertainment
that help establish the social, political and cultural attitudes
of increasingly larger populations . . .

. . .Now, in the
wake of this most unfortunate phenomenon — this monopolization
of the power to educate and inform — the actual nature and
substance of what truly constitutes “nationalism” has
been distorted. As such, more modern-day efforts to not only understand
and define and advance the cause of nationalism have been relegated
to what the Masters of the Media loosely call “the fringe.”. . .During the mid-20th century, the
one notable independent effort to define nationalism — at
least in the American historical context — came through the
work of one Willis A. Carto, the Indiana-born founder of a Washington-based
institution known as Liberty Lobby, the publisher of a widely-read
national weekly newspaper, The Spotlight.
. . .Although driven into bankruptcy
and destroyed in 2001 by a politically- motivated lawsuit that was
affirmed by a federal judge, The Spotlight
emerged, during its heyday, as perhaps the largest and most effective
voice for traditional American nationalism — the very reason
that the maverick newspaper was targeted for evisceration.. . .A survivor of wounds inflicted
upon him by the Japanese during brutal combat in the Pacific theater
during World War II, Liberty Lobby’s future founder, Carto,
returned home and — unlike many veterans who believed the
official propaganda — began his own personal journey of investigation,
seeking the answers to the “how” and the “why”
of American involvement in that genocidal world conflagration.. . .Ultimately, Carto came to question
the necessity of U.S. involvement not only in World War II but in
virtually all of the wars of the 20th century. In fact, long before
it became politically popular to do so — and certainly unlike
many on the traditional “right” — Carto raised
questions about the U.S. intervention in Southeast Asia, while conventional
“Cold War Liberals” were still pushing for deeper American
entanglement in the region, ultimately leading to the Vietnam debacle.. . .Never considering himself anything
but a nationalist, Carto made a conscious effort to draw the lines
and distinctions between American “conservatism” of the Republican stripe
and traditional nationalism. Rejecting what he considered to be
the tired and worn and thoroughly inadequate concepts of “right”
and “left,” Carto worked energetically through Liberty
Lobby to develop a thriving nationalist movement, specifically focusing
on the dangers of internationalism, placing nationalism as central
to the overall framework of an American populist philosophy exemplified
by Thomas Jefferson and an approach toward foreign relations (in
particular) as laid out by George Washington in his Farewell Address.

. . .Carto’s book, Populism
vs.Plutocracy:The Universal Struggle, captured the
essence of Carto’s nationalist point of view, reflecting on
the monumental figures of American populism and their particular
contributions to nationalist thought: ranging from statesmen such
as Jefferson and Jackson to progressive firebrands as Robert LaFollette
and Burton Wheeler to famed radio priest, Father Charles Coughlin,
America First Committee spokesman Charles Lindbergh, nationalist
Sen. Robert Taft, and such intellectual giants as Lawrence Dennis,
undoubtedly the premier American nationalist theoretician of the
20th century.. . .The views of these men —
plus many other giants — taken together comprised a basis
for the nationalist philosophy that Carto put forth in every way
possible through a wide variety of media at his disposal over some
50 years of active involvement in the American public arena.. . .Carto insisted that adherence
to Washington’s words of wisdom provided not only the means
to ensure America’s tranquil relations with its neighbors
— near and far — but also a foundation for building
a strong nation capable of ensuring its own domestic stability.. . .Perhaps more than any other American
— including Washington himself — Carto utilized the
considerable media outreach at his disposal to repeat, time and
time again, Washington’s warnings:

. . .So likewise,
a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety
of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion
of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common
interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other,
betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars
of the latter, without adequate inducements or justifications.
It also leads to concessions, to the favorite nation, of privileges
denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making
the concessions, by unnecessary parting with what ought to have
been retained and by exciting jealousy, ill will and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens who devote themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption or infatuation.
. . .Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it.
. . .Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike for another, cause those whom they acuate to see dangeronly on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other.
. . .Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interest.
. . .The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith: — Here let us stop.
. . .It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.

. . .In the spirit
of Washington, Carto contended that true nationalists — of
all nations — believed in developing and strengthening their
nation from within, maintaining the integrity of its cultural heritage
and historic sovereign borders and placing their own nation’s
interests first. Nationalists did not start wars of imperialism,
he said, but respected the nationalist instincts of others.. . .Profiteering internationalist
plutocrats, Carto charged, condemned nationalism because it interfered
with their goal of profit and their aim to submerge all nations
in a “Global Plantation” under their domination.. . .In Carto’s estimation, internationalism
was a dream of naive idealists that the eradication of all national and
racial borders will usher in world peace in which everyone will
live happily ever after — a chimerical dream of poets and
religious leaders for millennia.. . .In actual application, Carto averred,
internationalism could only produce mass confusion, tension, anarchy
and violence. Plutocrats used internationalism to break down national
boundaries and promote multiculturalism, an essential step to complete
their conquest of the world and the formal erection of their world
super state, the Global Plantation, often called a “New World
Order”— by both the nationalists and the internationalists.. . .Carto put it simply: the concept
of a New World Order is no less than the drive for a world government
directed by the plutocrats who see it as a way to capture all of
the natural resources of the globe and to effectively enslave all
of the people under an international bureaucracy chosen and controlled
by the financial elite.. . .In any event, Carto’s influence
in shaping the philosophical foundation of the American nationalist
movement was (and is) beyond question. In fact, when longtime Republican
Party figure Pat Buchanan — the syndicated columnist —
began emerging as a serious, high-profile critic — from a
nationalist perspective — of the growing internationalist
bent within Republican ranks, major media voices throughout the
land acknowledged — albeit grudgingly — that it had
been Carto and Liberty Lobby that helped pave the way for Buchanan’s
ascension.

. . .It was Pat Buchanan — formerly
a “mainstream” figure — who began echoing the
rhetoric and historical foundation that had been preserved through
Carto’s earlier work, and thereby brought at least a Buchanan
version of “nationalism” into the American political
arena as he made successive bids for the Republican Party’s
presidential nomination. As early as June 26, 1995, the progressive
weekly, The Nation, began taking note
of the new populism and nationalism that was driving the Buchanan
campaign. Describing a Buchanan rally in New Hampshire, The
Nation pointed out that:

When asked to cite what issue most moves them
about Buchanan, a number of [them] referred to the economic nationalism
of his crusades against NAFTA and GATT. Buchanan has howled about
trade pacts that benefit transnational corporations at the expense
of American workers and surrender U.S. sovereignty to a not-to-be-trusted
international establishment, thus melding populism of the left
and right.

The Nation explored Buchanan’s new
emphasis further:

. . .It was in
New Hampshire that Buchanan’s economic populism first stirred.
When he campaigned in the state in 1992, he encountered people
socked by recession.. . .Buchanan had been propelled
into that race by his far-right disgust at President Bush’s
decision to sign a civil rights measure and to renege on the read-my-lips
declaration [against new taxes]. But while trudging through the
Granite State, Buchanan discovered economic dislocation —
hardworking Americans hurled out of well-paying jobs. The fault,
he concluded, lay with globalization and U.S. trade policies.
. . .Since then he has assailed the
big banks and corporations that seek these jobs-exporting trade
agreements and that finance a slew of lobbyists who guarantee
that the trade deals slide through Congress. He is the only Republican
contender to acknowledge and address the decline in real wages
that has hit middle-income America.. . .In doing so, Buchanan adds fresh
troops to the social conservatives in his “Buchanan Brigades.”
Mad at the Japanese? Outraged your child can’t pray in school?
Buchanan is out there welding constituencies.. . .Alone in the GOP, he attacks
Washington as both the Establishment that promotes a liberal secular
order and the Establishment that pushes the corporatist New World
Order. Though also a fierce Catholic foot soldier in service to
a conservative social and religious Establishment, Buchanan is
the closest thing to a genuine populist in the 1996 race so far.

. . .The political
“right” also stood up and took notice of Buchanan’s
apparent shift. On November 27, 1995 the “conservative”
Weekly Standard — financed by billionaire
Rupert Murdoch, and edited by one William Kristol, leader of the
self-styled clique of “neo-conservatives” enamored with
nothing less than advancing a Zionist-dominated American imperialism
— raised its own concerns about Buchanan’s nationalist
broadsides against the power elite. The Standard
asserted:

. . .In
an increasingly
conservative America, one political figure defiantly
resists the
historical tide. This man still denounces big banks and
multinational
corporations. Still unabashedly puts the interests of
the American
factory worker ahead of those of the so-called
international tradingsystem. Still refuses even to contemplate any
cuts in the generosity of big middle-class spending
programs like
Medicare and Social Security. This man is Patrick J.
Buchanan,
America’s last leftist . . .

. . .Noting that
Buchanan retained his traditional stance on social issues, The
Standard then pointed out that:

. . .His campaign
speeches stress arresting new themes: the imminent menace of world
government, the greed of international banks, the power of tariffs
to stop the deterioration in blue-collar wages, the urgency of
preserving Medicare in something close to its present form.. . .This isn’t anything remotely
like the conservative Republicanism of the Reagan era. What it
sounds very much like instead is the militant, resentful rhetoric
roared by populist Democrats from William Jennings Bryan onward.
The revulsion contemporary Democrats feel for Buchanan only exposes
how far that party has drifted from its own past.

. . .The
Standard charged that Buchanan had abandoned the “traditional”
stands of conservative Republicans and had begun to shift (or at
least attempt to shift) the Republican
Party in a nationalist direction:

. . .The important
question for traditional conservative Republicans is how far Mr.
Buchanan should be permitted to take the party. The success of
Buchanan’s 1992 campaign has already begun to redirect the
Republican Party to a more restrictive position on immigration
and a much harder line on affirmative action . . .. . .Should he be welcomed or not?
In 1992, many conservatives suffered excruciating difficulty in
deciding . . .This time, though, the choice ought to be easier.
Conservatives need to recognize that Buchanan’s politics
is . . . something new: a populism formed to seize the political
opportunities presented by strident multiculturalism and stagnating
wages for less-skilled workers . . .. . .As things are going, it is likely
only a matter of time before Buchanan himself recognizes the rapidly
mounting distance between his politics and those of mainstream
conservatism. His friend and fellow columnist Sam Francis, whose
ideas Mr. Buchanan has increasingly echoed, has already dropped the word “conservative”
outright. The danger is not so much that Buchanan will hijack
conservatism as that, even after he charges out of it on is way
toward some unscouted ideological destination of his own, his
statist and populist ideas will seep backward into it . . .

. . .At this juncture,
the Murdoch-financed voice for internationalism formally declared
war on Buchanan and read him out of the ranks of “conservative”
Republicans:

. . .Buchanan has
never shied from a fight, and neither should those Republicans
who oppose him. Republicans who hold fast to the traditions of
postwar conservatism that Buchanan is rejecting — small
government and American global leadership — should make
clear that they understand as well as Buchanan does the immense
difference between his politics and theirs. He has turned his
back on the fundamental convictions that have defined American
conservatism for 40 years, and conservatives shouldn’t be
afraid to say so. After all, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, it isn’t
we who have left Pat Buchanan; it is Pat Buchanan who is leaving
us.

. . .In other words,
Pat Buchanan, if elected president, would take the Republican Party
out of the internationalist camp and that’s the last thing
this “conservative” voice wanted to happen.. . .Ultimately, of course, Buchanan
left the Republican Party and opted to run — in 2000 —
as the candidate of the Reform Party. However, when all was said
and done, the Buchanan Movement failed — and failed badly.
The American nationalist movement was dealt a harsh electoral blow
with Buchanan’s devastatingly poor showing in that election.
Nationalists were left holding the bag as Buchanan moved back into
the world of big-time media punditry. In the meantime, the nationalist
movement — the real nationalist movement — seeks not
only rejuvenation, but leadership.

. . .Ironically,
the greatest force standing against traditional American nationalism
happens to be Zionism. Although Zionism is, in itself, defined as
Jewish Nationalism, aimed at the establishment of a Jewish State,
which, in fact, ultimately emerged in 1948 with the founding of
Israel, the truth is that Zionism is essentially an international
movement of vast scope and power with Israel serving as hardly more
than its spiritual (albeit geographically specific) capital.

. . .In that regard,
in this author’s previous work, The New Jerusalem,
we explored the striking reality that, for all intents and purposes,
the Zionist movement has essentially adopted the United States —
through sheer force of financial and political power — as
its primary base of operations, using the American military (generally
against the wishes of the military leadership) to enforce a global
imperium designed to advance the power of Israel (and the Zionist
agenda) on the world stage. (...)

Populism vs Plutocracy: The Universal Struggle is the only complete
record of the history of American populism, as embodied in the lives of
America’s populist heroes and statesmen...
Edited by W. A. Carto, this unique work shows that populism is much more
than a counterfeit label for demagogic politicians to sew on their
tattered and soiled garments. Populism has profoundly significant
meaning to the people of America and the world. Today with communism as
an ideology rightly perceived as failed and discredited, populism
stands, taller than ever, as the only obstacle in the path of plutocrats
who seek to reduce all of the people of the world to economic and
political slavery under a Global Plantation. Thus the populist
alternative is a critical subject.
In these pages are colorful biographies of some of America’s best-known
populists (and some not so well-known) with emphasis on the populist
philosophy that guided them in the public arena...
Do you know who these great populist figures are?

Two American presidents (See Chapter I and Chapter II)

Two of America’s most powerful newspaper publishers (See Chapter VI and Chapter X)

Two of the most influential (and controversial) American men of letters: Ezra POUND and Robert TAFT (See Chapter XI and Chapter XIII)

The greatest inventor in modern history (See Chapter HI)

A Catholic priest (See Chapter XVII)

An industrial giant—a household name (See Chapter VII)

These are just a handful of the fascinating subjects profiled in this momentous volume that is so timely and needed...
About the editor : Willis A. Carto, a native of Indiana, is best known
as the founder and treasurer of Liberty Lobby, the Washington, D.C.
based populist Institution (established in 1955). Carto is also the
publisher of The Barnes Review, a monthly historical journal with
readers in 31 nations around the globe.Balderexlibris.com | Author: Willis A. Carto

Is the only complete record of the history of American populism, as embodied in the lives of America’s populist heroes. Edited by Willis Carto,
the founder of Liberty Lobby, this unique work shows that populism is
much more than a counterfeit label for demagogic politicians to sew on
their tattered and soiled garments. Today, with communism rightly
perceived as failed and discredited, populism stands as the only
obstacle in the world to economic and political slavery in a Global
Plantation.

"And when he was come into Jerusalem, Jesus went into the temple, and
cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the
tables of the money-changers." - Matthew 21.10-12_Populism vs.
Plutocracy: The Universal Struggle_ is an updated edition of _Profiles
in Populism_ edited by Willis A. Carto of the Liberty Lobby which
expounds the populist political philosophy for the American nation by
offering small profiles of some of the greatest historical populist
figures. Many politicians of today claim the populist label; however,
as this volume shows few among the Establishment's figures fully
understand this political philosophy. Populism is opposed to both
monopoly capitalism, high finance, the Federal Reserve banking system,
as well as communism and socialism. Populism also argues for an America
First, nationalist and non-interventionist, foreign policy of armed
neutrality, as opposed to the internationalist policies of both so
called "right" and left wing elites. Populism also suggests a
scientific tariff system, opposing free trade, to reduce unfair
competition from foreign industry, as well as restrictions on
immigration from the Third World. Populism also sees the importance of
Western civilization (despite its apparent decline into decadence and
immorality) against encroaching alien influences and the ever broadening
New World Order program of the elite. Against such mattoid criminals
as Karl Marx, John D. Rockefeller, and agents for global Zionism,
populism maintains the interest of the common American working man and
the agrarian farmer. This volume features profiles of various figures
transcending both political parties (Republican and Democrat) who have
at times espoused elements of the populist philosophy. These include
President and agrarian democrat Thomas Jefferson, populist President
Andrew Jackson and opponent to the federal bank, inventor Thomas Edison,
Senator Robert LaFollette, Senator Thomas Watson, press lord William
Randolph Hearst, American industrialist Henry Ford, California
progressive Hiram Johnson, "Alfalfa Bill" William Murray, newspaper
publisher Robert R. McCormick, columnist and wit H. L. Mencken, Senator
Burton K. Wheeler, poet Ezra Pound, Representative Hamilton Fish,
Senator George W. Malone, Roman Catholic priest Father Charles Coughlin,
Senator Huey Long, populist intellectual Lawrence Dennis, Col. Charles
A. Lindbergh, and Mayor Frank Rizzo. Many of these populists remained
resolute in their opposition to American involvement in the First and
Second World Wars as well as to unfair income taxation which is used as a
weapon by the ultra-rich against the middle class. This book contains
many insights into the nature of American politics, where our wealth and
resources are continually plundered by robber barons to be pawned off
to the Third World through war and "relief efforts". Today, the
political Establishment acts in complete opposition to the populist
philosophy attempting to censor it where it is found. If one wishes to
see through the propaganda machine that currently exists as a
smokescreen over America, it is necessary to read books such as this
which reveal America's true nationalist tradition.

U.S. should be the world’s policeman
When there is no effective alternative,
democratic countries have an ethical and humanitarian duty to threaten
to use military force and, if there is no other option, to actually use
it.

U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc., September 21, 2013.Photo by AFP

The United States should not be the world's policeman, or so U.S. President Barack Obama
argued in his address to the nation on September 10, in which he
explained his position on military intervention in the Syrian civil war.
The president is wrong. In light of the history and doctrine of the use
of force and military intervention, the United States, along with other
enlightened democracies in possession of military might, should and
must be the world's policeman.
The
horrors of World War II taught us certain lessons. One led to the
formation of the United Nations, for the purpose of preserving world
peace and creating a mechanism for dialogue among states. Another
resulted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which eventually
gave rise to binding international treaties meant to protect human
rights. But some questions remain: Do the lofty goals that inspired the
establishment of the United Nations mean that the international
community has aduty to intervene and raise the alarm
in the event of the commission of war crimes or the use of weapons of
mass destruction? (...)
It is legitimate to question whether intervention might lead to
international escalation. Nevertheless, isolationism in cases where
intervention is a moral necessity is supposed to be a thing of the past,
of a
time when states did not want to get bogged down in distant countries
even in the event of war crimes. If this attitude becomes prevalent once
again, it will be to the detriment of the entire world. It goes without
saying that diplomacy, itself a form of intervention, is preferable as
long as it is effective and not a kind of Munich Pact, as U.S. Secretary
of State John Kerry noted in reference to Syria.
At
the end of the day, America, together with other strong democratic
countries, is indeed supposed to be the world's policeman - insofar as
it is acting on behalf of the fundamental principles on which the United
Nations was founded, even when political exigencies preclude obtaining
UN approval. When there is no effective alternative or pressure must be
exerted to kick-start diplomacy, democratic countries have an ethical
and humanitarian duty to threaten to use military force and, if there is
no other option, to actually use it. Proportionally, of course, but
also effectively, in compliance with the two leading criteria of
military law.

(...)
Obama's
address included more than faint echoes of another principled Democrat
intent on transforming American society and the world beyond it: Woodrow
Wilson, the 28th president of the United States, and the man who led
his country into the First World War.
(...)
However,
in A. Scott Berg's biography, "Wilson" (Putnam Press), the book's
namesake emerges as a formidable statesman, one who has influenced the
decision-making of every American president since his tenure.
Berg,
the Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of Charles Lindbergh and
Hollywood producer Samuel Goldwyn, sat down with Haaretz to discuss
Wilson's legacy and its effect on modern politics and the Obama
administration's policies – and why Wilson is what he calls the most
pro-Jewish president in American history.
Why is the Wilson presidency so relevant to the Obama presidency?
"Wilson
is the father of America's modern foreign policy. For 125 years, the
U.S. was an introverted nation that clung on to its isolationism. Wilson
posed the question: What is America's role in the world? And the answer
he gave, in his speech to Congress on April 2, 1917, asking the
legislature to declare war on Germany, was that it is America's duty to
ensure "the world must be safe for democracy." This credo has been
espoused, for good and bad, by every president since Wilson, most
recently by Barack Obama.
"Wilson
was the most idealistic of America's presidents. He spoke often and
eloquently about America's moral obligation. He wed idealism with
interventionism. He urged his countrymen to fight preemptively for
principles, instead of retaliating for attacks against them. And he
obliged the U.S. to assist all peoples in pursuit of freedom and
self-determination. Obama has fully embraced this moralism, most
recently, when he sought congressional approval to punish Syria for its
deadly use of chemical weapons. In fact, listening to his speech [on
Syria], I thought Obama's ideas and phraseology were ripped right out of
Wilson's playbook."
(...)In late 1917, the British Government asked President Wilson to support a declaration of sympathy with the Zionist movement.
"And
he did. Wilson supported the Balfour Declaration – 'the establishment
in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.' He did so
despite the advice of his most trusted confidante, Col. Edward House,
who acted as America's first national security adviser. You must
remember that, at the time, the U.S. was an extremely anti-Semitic
country,so expressing support for the Balfour Declaration was a very
courageous act.
"Wilson
was the most Christian president the U.S. has ever had. He was the son
and grandson of Presbyterian ministers; he prayed on his knees twice a
day and read the Bible every night. But he was also the most pro-Jewish
president the U.S. has ever had. He appointed the first Jew to the
Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis, a fervent Zionist, who counseled Wilson
about the Balfour Declaration, and who would go on to champion an
individual's right to privacy and free speech. He brought the financier
Bernard Baruch into government, and he appointed Henry Morgenthau as the
ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during the First World War.
"Earlier,
as president of Princeton University, Wilson appointed the first Jew to
the faculty, and as governor of New Jersey, prior to becoming
president, he appointed the first Jew to the state's Supreme Court."VIDEO - WILSON ASKS CONGRESS TO DECLARE WAR 1917

"Countries
in the Middle East will likely think about following the recent example
of the Egyptian government in moving closer to Russia at the
expense of their ties to the United States. Israel’s neighbors, in
addition to the Palestinians and Hizbullah, will make what they will of
an America no longer able to provide Israel with the kind of qualitative and quantitative military backing the Israelis and their enemies have come to take for granted. (...) But equally at issue here is the kind of robust presence the U.S. will maintain around the world, as well as the responses the military would be able to muster given any number of potential crises. (...) But we cannot help but be uneasy with a White House that seems to be signaling a weariness with America’s traditional role in the world and a wish to unburden itself of the responsibilities of leadership. "